E 

>e 

LS 


X 


THE  TRIBUNE  WAR 

No.  5. 


TRACTS, 


PRESIDENT   LINCOLN 


ON 


Vallandigham  and  "Arbitrary  Arrests," 


A  great  "  Democratic  meeting"  was  held  at 
Albany  on  the  16th  ult.  to  denounce  the  arrest 
of  Vallandigham  and  demand  his  restoration  to 
liberty.  Hon.  Erastus  Corning,  M.  C.,  pre- 
sided; Mayor  Eli  Perry  was  first  Vice-Presi- 
dent, &c.,  &c.  This  meeting  having  unani- 
mously 

Ptiolved,  That  we  demand  that  the  Administration  shall  be 
true  to  the  Constitution;  shall  recoguize  »nd  maintain  the 
rights  of  the  Sate*  aud  the  liberties  of  the  citizen;  shall 
everywhere,  outside  of  the  line*  of  necessary  military  occu- 
pation and  tue  scenes  of  insurrection,  exert  all  its  powers  to 
maintain  the  supremacy  of  the  civil  over  military  Itw. 

Rcfjlvd.  That,  in  view  of  these  principles,  we  denounce 
the  recent  assumption  of  a  military  commander  to  seize  and 
Uy  a  ci  izen  of  Ohio.  Clement  L.  Vallandigbam,  for  no  other 
reiton  than  words  addressed  to  a  public  meeting,  in  cri  ici.m 
of  the  coune  of  the  Administration,  aud  in  condemnation  of 
the  military  orders  of  that  General. 

Retolved,  That  this  assumption  of  power  by  a  military  tri- 
bunal, if  successfully  asserted,  not  only  abrogates  th«  right 
of  the  people  to  a«»emble  and  discuss  the  aflaus  of  Govern- 
ment, the  libeity  of  speech  and  of  the  piess,  the  right  of  trial 
by  JuO'i  the  -law  of  evidence,  and  the  privilege  of  habcat 
corjtui,  but  it  strikes  a  fa'al  blow  at  the  supremacy  of  law, 
and  toe  authority  of  the  state  arid  Federal  Constitutions, 

&c.,  &c., — closed  as  follows: 

Reiolved.  That  the  President,  VIce-Presidents.  and  Secre- 
tary of  this  meeting  be  requested  to  transmit  a  copy  of  these 
resolutions  to  hi*  Excellency  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  with  the  asvurance  of  this  meeting  ot  their  heurty  aud 
earnefct  desir*  to  support  the  Government  in  every  constitu- 
tional and  lawful  measure  to  suppress  the  eximag  Rebellion. 

The  officers  obeyed  this  request,  in  a  note 
which  reads  as  follows: 

ALBANY,  May  19,  1863. 
To  hit  Excellency  the  Pretident  of  the  United  States : 

The  undersigned,  officers  of  a  public  meeting  held  at  the 
City  of  Albany  on  the  lo'ih  day  of  May  inetant,  herewith  trans- 
ait  your  Excellency  a  copy  of  the  resolutions  adopted  at  the 
said  meeting,  and  respectfully  request  your  earnest  considera- 
tion of  ttieoi.  They  deem  it  proper  on  their  personal  respon- 
sibility to  state  that  (he  meeting  was  one  of  the  moat  respect- 
able an  to  numbers  anil  character,  and  one  of  the  moat  earnest 
in  the  suppoit  of  the  Union,  ever  held  in  this  city. 
Yours,  with  great  resard, 

ERA&TU3  CORNING,  Presidsnt,  tc.,  &.C. 

— To  all  which  the  following  answer  has  been 
returned  by  the  President: 

MR.  LINCOLN'S  REPLY. 

EXKCUTIVB  MANSION.  WASHINGTON,  June  12, 1863* 
Hen.  ERASTTJB  CORNING  and  other*: 

GENTLEMEN:  Your  letter  of  May  19,  inclosing  the 
resolutions  of  a  public  meeting  held  at  Albany, 
N.  Y.,  on  the  16th  of  the  same  month,  was  received 
several  days  ago. 

The  resolutions,  as  I  understand  them,  are  resolv- 
able into  two  propositions — first,  the  expression  of 
a  purpose  to  sustain  the  cause  of  the  Union,  to  se- 
cure peace  through  victory,  and  to  support  the  Ad- 
ministration in  every  constitutional  and  lawful 


measure  to  suppress  the  Rebellion ;  and  eecondly,  a 
declaration  of  censure  upon  the  Administration  for 
supposed  unconstitutional  action,  such  as  the  making 
of  military  arrests.  And,  from  the  two  propositions, 
a  third  is  deduced,  which  is  that  the  gentlemen  com- 
posing the  meeting  are  resolved  on  doing  their  part 
to  maintaiu  our  common  government  and  country, 
deepite  the  folly  or  wickedness,  as  they  may  con- 
ceive, of  any  Administration.  This  position  is  emi- 
nently patriotic,  and  as  such  I  tbuiik  the  meeting 
and  congratulate  the  nation  for  it.  My  own  pur- 
pose is  the  same;  so  that  the  meeting  and  myself 
have  a  common  object,  and  can  have  no  difference, 
except  in  the  choice  of  means  or  measures  ior  effect- 
ing that  object. 

And  here  I  ought  to  close  this  paper,  and  would 
close  it,  it  there  were  no  apprehension  that  more- in- 
jurious consequences  than  any  merely  pereonal  to 
myself  might  follow  the  censures  systematically 
cast  npon  me  for  doing  what,  in  my  view  of  duty.  I 
could  not  forbear.  TLe  resolutions  promise  to  sup- 
port me  in  every  constitutional  and  lawful  measure 
to  supprets  the  Rebellion;  and  I  have  not  know- 
ingly employed,  nor  shall  knowingly  employ,  any 
other.  But  the  meeting,  by  their  resoluiioue,  assert 
and  argue  that  certain  military  arrests,  and  pro- 
ceedings following  them,  for  which  I  am  ultimately 
responsible,  are  unconstitutional.  I  think  they  are 
not.  The  resolutions  quote  from  the  Constitution 
the  definition  of  treason,  and  also  the  limiting  safe- 
guards and  guarantees  therein  provided  for  the  citi- 
zen on  trials  for  treason,  aud  on  his  being  held  to 
answer  lor  capital  or  otherwise  infamous  ci  imes, 
and,  in  criminal  prosecutions,  his  right  to  a  speedy 
and  public  trial  by  tm  impartial  jury.  Ttiey  pro- 
ceed to  resolve  "  that  these  safeguards  of  the  rights 
of  the  citizen  against  the  pretensions  of  arbitrary 
power  were  intended  more  especially  for  his  protec- 
tion in  times  of  civil  commotion."  And,  appa- 
rently to  demonstrate  the  proposition,  the  reso- 
lutions proceed:  "They  were  secured  substan- 
tially to  the  English  people  after  years  of  pro- 
tracted civil  war,  and  were  adopted  into  our  Con- 
stitution at  the  close  of  the  Revolution."  Would  not 
the  demonetration  have  been  better  if  it  could  have 
been  truly  said  that  these  safeguards  hud  been 
adopted  and  applied  during  the  civil  wars  and 
during  our  Revolution,  instead  of  after  the  one  and 
at  the  close  of  the  other?  I,  too,  am  devcitdly  for 
them  after  civil  war.  and  before  civil  war,  and  at 


all  times,  "  except  when,  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  in- 
vasion, the  public  safety  may  require  "  their  suspen- 
sion. The  resolutions  proceed  to  tell  us  that  these 
eafeguards  "have  stood  the  test  of  seventy-six 
years  of  trial,  under  our  republican  system,  under 
circumstances  which  show  that,  whj  let  hey  constitute 
the  foundation  of  all  free  government,  they  are  the 
elements  of  the  enduring  stability  of  4Jhe  Republic." 
No  one.  defies  that  they  uu  /P.  so  ttoad  tbe\test  up  to 
the  beginning  cf  the  present  Rehellxca,  if. we  except 
a  certain  occurrence  at  New-Orleans;  nor  does  any 
one  question  that  they  will  stand  the  same  test  much 
longer  after  the  Rebellion  closes.  But  these  provis- 
ions of  the  Constitution  have  no  application  to  the 
caee  we  have  in  hand,  because  the  arrests  com- 
plained of  were  not  made  for  treason — that  is,  not 
for  the  treason  denned  in  the  Constitution,  and  upon 
conviction  of  which  the  punishment  is  death — 
nor  yet  were  they  made  to  hold  persons  to  answer 
for  any  capital  or  otherwise  infamous  crimes;  nor 
were  the  proceedings  following,  in  any  constitutional 
or  legal  sense,  "criminal  prosecutions."  The  ar- 
rests were  made  on  totally  different  grounds,  and  the 
proceedings  following  accorded  with  the  grounds  of 
the  arrests.  Let  UB  consider  the  real  caee  with  which 
we  are  dealing,  and  apply  to  it  the  parts  of  the  Con- 
stitution plainly  made  for  such  cases. 

Prior  to  my  installation  here,  it  had  been  incul- 
cated that  any  State  had  a  lawful  right  to  secede 
from  the  national  Union,  and  that  it  would  be  expe- 
dient M>  exercise  the  right  whenever  the  devotees 
of  the  doctrine  should  iail  to  elect  a  President 
to  their  own  liking.  I  was  elected  contrary  to  their 
liking;  mid,  accordingly,  BO  far  as  it  was  legally 
possible,  they  had  taken  seven  States  out  of  the 
Union,  had  seized  many  of  the  United  States  forts, 
and  had  fired  upon  the  United  States  flag,  all  before 
I  was  inaugurated,  and,  of  course,  before  I  bad 
done  any  official  act  whatever.  Tbe  Rebellion  thus 
began  soon  ran  into  the  present  Civil  War;  and,  in 
certain  respects,  it  began  on  very  unequal  terms  be- 
tween the  parties.  Tbe  insurgen  s  had  been  pre- 
paring for  it  more  than  thirty  years,  while  the  Gov- 
ernment had  taken  no  steps  10  resist  them.  The 
former  had  carefully  considered  all  the  means  which 
could  be  turned  to  their  account.  It  undoubtedly 
was  a  well- pondered  reliance  with  them  that,  in 
their  own  unrestricted  efforts  to  destroy  Union,  Con- 
stitution, and  law,  all  together,  the  Government 
would,  in  great  degree,  be  restrained  by  the  same 
Constitution  and  law  from  arresting  tbeir  progress. 
Their  sympathizers  pervaded  all  departments  of  the 
Government  and  nearly  all  communities  of  the  peo- 
ple. From  this  material,  under  cover  of  "  liberty  of 
speech,"  "  liberty  of  the  press,"  and  "habeas  cor- 
pus," they  hoped  to  keep  on  foot  among  us  a  most 
efficient  corps  of  spies,  informers,  suppliers,  and 
aiders  and  abettors  of  tbeir  cans*  in  a  thousand  ways. 
They  knew  that  in  times  such  as  they  were  inaugu- 
rating, by  the  Constitution  i'-self,  the  "habeas 
sorpus"  might  be  suspended;  but  they  also 
tnew  they  had  friends  who  would  make  a 
question  as  to  w ho  was  to  suspend  it;  meanwnile, 
iheir  spies  and  others  might  remain  at  large  to  help 
on  tlieir  cause.  Or,  if,  as  has  happened,  the 
Executive  should  suspend  the  writ,  without  ruinous 
waste  of  time,  instances  of  arresting  innocent  persona 


. 

might  occur,  as  are  always  likely  to  occur  in  sucfc 
cases ;  and  then  a  clamor  could  be  raised  in  regard 
to  this,  -which  might  be,  at  least,  of  some  service  to 
the  insurgent  cause.  It  needed  no  very  keen  per- 
ception to  discover  this  part  of  the  enemy's  pro- 
gramme,  BO  soon  as,  by  open  hostilities,  their  ma- 
chinery was  fairly  put  in  motion.  Yet,  thoroughly 
imbued  with  a  reverence  for  the  guaranteed  rights 
of  individuals,  I  was  elow  to  adopt  the  strong 
measures  which  by  degrees  I  have  been  forced  to 
regard  as  being  within  the  exceptions  of  the  Consti- 
tution, and  as  indispensable  to  the  public  safety. 
Nothing  is  better  known  to  history  than  that  courts 
of  justice  are  utterly  incompetent  to  such  cases, 
civil  courts  are  organized  chiefly  for  trials  of 
individuals,  or,  at  most,  a  few  individuals  acting 
in  concert;  and  this  in  quiet  times,  and  on  charges 
of  crimes  well  defined  in  the  law.  Even  in  times  of 
peace,  bands  of  horse-thieves  and  robbers  frequently 
grow  too  numerous  and  powerful  for  the  ordinary 
courts  of  justice.  But  what  comparison,  in  num- 
bers, have  such  bands  ever  borne  to  the  insurgent 
sympathizers  even  in  many  of  the  loyal  States  ? 
Again:  a  jary  too  frequently  has  at  least  one  mem- 
ber more  ready  to  hang  the  panel  than  to  hang  the 
traitor.  And  yet,  again,  he  who  dissuades  one 
man  from  volunteering,  or  induces  one  soldier 
to  desert,  weakens  thjs  Union  cause  as  much  as  he 
who  kills  a  Union  soldier  in  battle.  Yet  this  dis- 
suasion or  inducement  may  be  so  conducted  as  to  be 
no  defined  crime  of  which  any  civil  court  would  take 
cognizance. 

Ours  is  a  case  of  rebellion— BO  called  by  the  reso- 
lutions before  me — in  fact,  a  clear,  flagrant,  and 
gigantic  case  of  rebellion;  and  the  provision  of  the 
Constitution  that  "the  privilege  of  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  shall  not  be  suspended,  unless  when, 
in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion,  the  public  safety 
may  require  it,"  is  the  provision  which  specially  ap- 
plies to  our  present  case.  This  provision  plainly  at- 
tests the  understanding  of  those  who  made  the  Consti- 
tution, that  ordinary  courts  of  justice  are  inadequate 
to  "cases  of  rebellion" — attests  their  purpose  that, 
in  such  cases,  men  may  be  held  in  custody  whom  the 
courts,  acting  on  ordinary  rules,  would  discharge. 
Habeas  corpus  does  not  discharge  men  who  are 
proved  to  be  guilty  of  defined  crime;  and  its  suspen- 
sion is  allowed  by  the  Contstitution  on  purpose  that 
men  may  be  arrested  and  held  who  cannot  be  proved 
to  be  guilty  of  defined  crime,  "  when,  in  cases  of 
rebellion  or  invasion,  the  public  safety  may  require 
it."  This  is  precisely  our  present  case — a  case  of 
rebellion,  wherein  the  public  safety  does  require  the 
suspension.  Indeed,  arrests  by  process  of  courts, 
and  arrests  in  caaes  of  rebellion,  do  not  proceed  al- 
together upon  the  same  basis.  The  former  is  directed 
at  the  small  per  centage  of  ordinarv  and  continuous 
perpetration  of  crime;  while  the  latter  is  directed  at 
sudden  and  extensive  uprisings  against  the  Govern- 
ment, which  at  most,  will  succeed  or  fail  in  no  great 
length  of  time.  In  the  latter  case,  arrests  are  made, 
not  so  much  for  what  has  been  done,  at>  for  what  prob- 
ably would  be  done.  The  latter  ia  more  for  the 
preventive  and  less  for  the  vindictive  than  the 
former.  In  such  cases,  the  purposes  of  men  are  much 
more  easily  understood  than  in  cases  of  ordinary 
crime.  The  man  who  stands  by  and  says  nothing 


when  the  peril  of  his  Government  is  discussed,  can- 
not be  misunderstood.  If  not  hindered,  he  is  sure  to 
help  the  enemy;  much  more,  if  he  talks  ambiguous- 
ly—talks  for  his  country  with  "buts"  and  "ifs" 
and  "  ands."  Of  how  little  value  the  constitutional 
provisions  I  have  quoted  -will  be  rendered,  if  arrests 
eball  never  be  made  until  defined  crimes  shall  have 
been  committed,  may  be  illustrated  by  a  few 
notable  examples.  Gep.  John  C.  Breckiuridge, 
Gen.  Robert  E.  Lee,  Gen.  Joseph  E.  Johnston, 
Gen.  John  B.  Magruder,  Gen.  William  B.  Preston, 
Gen.  Simon  B.  Buckner,  and  Commodore  Franklin 
Buchanan,  now  occupying  the  very  highest  places 
in  the  Rebel  war  service,  were  all  within  the 
power  of  the  Government  since  the  Rebellion 
began,  and  were  nearly  as  well  known  to  be 
traitors  then  as  now.  Unquestionably  if  we 
had  seized  and  held  them,  the  insurgent  cause 
would  be  much  weaker.  But  no  one  of  them  had 
then  committed  any  crime  defined  in  the  law. 
Every  one  of  them,  if  arrested,  would  have  been  dis- 
charged on  habeas  corpus  were  the  writ  allowed  to 
operate.  In  view  of  these  and  similar  cases,  I 
think  the  time  not  unlikely  to  come  when  I  shall  be 
blamed  for  having  made  too  few  arrests  rather  than 
too  many. 

By  the  third  resolution,  the  meeting  indicate  their 
opinion  that  military  arrests  may  be  constitutional 
in  localities  where  rebellion  actually  exists,  but 
that  sucb  arrests  are  unconstitutional  in  localities 
where  rebellion  or  insurrection  does  not  actually 
exist.  They  insist  that  such  arrests  shall  not  be 
aaade  "  outside  of  the  lines  of  necessary  military 
occupation,  and  the  scenes  of  insurrection."  Inas- 
much, however,  as  the  Constitution  itself  makes  no 
such  distinction,  I  am  unable  to  believe  that  there  is 
any  such  constitutional  distinction.  I  concede  that 
the  class  of  arrests  complained  of  can  be  constitu- 
tional only  when,  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion, 
the  public  safety  may  require  them;  and  I  insist  that 
in  such  cases  they  are  constitutional  wherever  the 
public  safety  does  require  them;  as  well  in  places  to 
which  they  may  prevent  the  Rebellion  extending  as 
in  those  where  it  may  be  already  prevailing;  as 
well  where  they  may  restrain  mischievous  interfer- 
ence with  the  raising  and  supplying  of  armies  to 
suppress  the  Rebellion,  as  where  the  Rebellion  may 
actually  be;  as  well  where  they  may  restrain  the 
enticing  men  out  of  the  army,  as  where  they  would 
prevent  mutiny  in  the  army ;  equally  constitutional 
at  all  places  where  they  will  conduce  to  the  public 
safety,  as  against  the  dangers  of  rebellion  or  in- 
vasion. Take  the  particular  case  mentioned  by  the 
meeting.  It  is  asserted,  in  substance,  that  Mr.  Val- 
landigham  was,  by  a  military  commander,  seized 
and  tried  "  for  no  other  reason  than  words  ad- 
dressed to  a  public  meeting,  in  criticism  of  the  course 
of  the  Administration,  and  in  condemnation  of  the 
Military  orders  of  the  General."  Now,  if  there  be 
no  mistake  about  this;  if  this  assertion  is  the  truth 
and  the  whole  truth ;  if  there  was  no  other  reason 
for  the  arrest,  then  I  concede  that  the  arrest  was 
wrong.  But  the  arrest,  as  I  understand,  was  made 
for  a  very  different  reason.  Mr.  Vallandigham 
avows  his  hostility  to  the  War  on  the  part  of  the 
Union ;  and  his  arrest  was  made  because  he  was 
laboring,  with  some  effect,  to  prevent  the  raising  of 


troops;  to  encourage  desertions  from  the  army,  and 
to  leave  the  Rebellion  without  an  adequate  military 
force  to  suppress  it.  He  was  not  arrested  because 
he  was  damaging  the  political  prospects  of  the  Ad- 
ministration, or  the  personal  interests  of  the  Com- 
manding General,  but  because  he  was  damaging  the 
Army,  upon  the  existence  and  vigor  of  which  the 
life  of  the  Nation  depends.  He  was  warring  upon 
the  Military,  and  this  gave  the  Military  constitutional 
jurisdiction  to  lay  bands  upon  him.  If  Mr.  Vallan- 
digham was  not  damaging  the  military  power  of  the 
country,  then  his  arreat  was  made  on  mistake  of 
fact,  which  I  would  be  glad  to  correct  on  reasonably 
satisfactory  evidence. 

I  undei  stand  the  meeting,  whose  resolutions  I  am 
considering,  to  be  in  favor  of  suppressing  the  Re- 
bellion by  military  force — by  armies.  Long 
experience  has  shown  that  armies  cannot  be 
maintained  unless  desertions  shall  be  punished  by 
the  sevtre  penalty  of  death.  The  case  requires,  and 
the  law  and  the  Constitution  sanction,  this  punish- 
ment. Must  I  shoot  a  simple-minded  soldier  boy 
who  deserts,  while  I  must  not  touch  a  hair  of  a  wily 
agitator  who  induces  him  to  desert?  This  is  none 
the  lees  injurious  when  effected  by  getting  a  father, 
or  brother,  or  friend,  into  a  public  meeting,  and  there 
working  upon  his  feelings  till  be  is  persuaded  to 
write  the  soldier  boy  that  he  is  fighting  in  a  bad 
cause,  for  a  wicked  Administration  of  a  contempti- 
ble Government,  too  weak  to  arrest  and  punish  him 
if  he  shall  desert.  I  think  that  in  such  a  case  to 
silence  the  agitator  and  save  the  boy  is  not  only 
constitutional,  but  withal  a  great  mercy. 

If  I  be  wrong  on  this  question  of  constitutional 
power,  my  error  lies  in  believing  that  certain  pro- 
ceedings are  constitutional  when,  in  cases  of  rebel- 
lion or  invasion,  the  public  safety  requires  them, 
which  would  not  be  constitutional  when,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  rebellion  or  invasion,  the  public  safety 
does  not  require  them:  in  other  words,  that  the  Con- 
stitution is  not,  in  its  application,  in  all  respects  the 
same,  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion  involving  the 
public  safety,  as  it  is  in  time  of  profound  peace  and 
public  security.  The  Constitution  itself  makes  the 
distinction ;  and  I  can  no  more  be  persuaded  that 
the  Government  can  constitutionally  take  no  strong 
measures  in  time  of  rebellion,  because  it  can  be 
shown  that  the  same  could  not  be  lawfully  taken  in 
time  of  peace,  than  I  can  be  persuaded  that  a  par- 
ticular drug  is  not  good  medicine  for  a  sick  man,  be- 
cause it  can  be  shown  not  to  be  good  food  for  a  well 
one.  Nor  am  I  able  to  appreciate  the  danger  appre- 
hended by  tbe  meeting  that  the  American  people 
will,  by  means  of  military  arrests  during  the  Re- 
bellion, lose  the  right  of  Public  Discussion,  the 
Liberty  of  Speech  and  the  Press,  the  Law  of  Evi- 
dence, Trial  by  Jury,  and  Habeas  Corpus,  through- 
out  the  indefinite  peaceful  future,  which  I  trust  lies 
before  them,  any  more  than  I  am  able  to  believe 
that  a  man  could  contract  so  strong  an  appetite  for 
emetics  during  temporary  illness  as  to  persist  in  feed- 
ing upon  them  during  the  remainder  of  his  health- 
ful life. 

In  giving  the  resolutions  that  earnest  considera- 
tion which  you  request  of  me,  I  cannot  overlook  the 
fact  that  the  meeting  speak  as  "  Democrats."  Nor 
can  I,  with  full  respect  for  their  known  intelligence, 


and  the  fairly  presumed  deliberation  with  which  they 
prepared  their  resolutions,  be  permitted  to  suppose 
that  this  occurred  by  accident,  or  in  any  way  other 
tf>an  that  they  preferred  to  designate  themselves 
"  Democrats"  rather  than  "  American  citizens."  In 
this  time  of  national  peril,  I  would  have  preferred 
to  meet  you  upon  a  level  one  step  higher  than  any 
party  platform;  because  I  am  sure  that,  from  such 
more  elevated  position,  we  could  do  better  battle  for 
the  country  we  all  love  than  we  possibly  can  from 
those  lower  ones  where,  from  the  force  of  habit,  the 
prejudices  of  the  past,  and  selfish  hopes  of  the  fu- 
ture, we  are  sure  to  expend  much  of  our  ingenuity 
and  strength  in  finding  fault  with,  and  aiming  blows 
at  each  other.  But,  since  you  have  denied  me  this, 
I  will  yet  be  thankful,  for  the  country's  sake,  that 
not  all  Democrats  have  done  so.  He  on  whose  dis- 
cretionary judgment  Mr.  Vallandigham  was  arrested 
and  tried  is  a  Democrat,  having  no  old  party  affinity 
with  me;  and  the  judge  who  rejected  the  constitu- 
tional view  expressed  in  these  resolutions,  by  re- 
fuging to  discharge  Mr.  Vallandigham  on  habeas 
corpus,  is  a  Democrat  of  better  days  than  these,  hav- 
ing received  his  judicial  mantle  at  the  hands  of 
President  Jackson.  And  still  more,  of  all  those 
Democrats  who  are  nobly  exposing  their  lives  and 
shedding  their  blood  on  the  battle-field,  I  have 
learned  that  many  approve  the  course  taken  with 
Mr.  Vallandigham,  while  I  have  not  heard  of  a  sin- 
gle one  condemning  it.  I  cannot  assert  tbat  there 
are  none  such.  And  the  name  of  President  Jackson 
recalls  an  instance  of  pertinent  history:  After  the 
battle  of  New-Orleans,  and  while  the  fact  tbat  the 
treaty  of  peace  had  been  concluded  was  well  known 
in  the  city,  but  before  official  knowledge  of  it  had 
arrived,  Gen.  Jackson  still  maintained  martial  or 
military  law.  Now,  that  it  could  be  taid  the  war 
was  over,  the  clamor  against  martial  law,  which  had 
existed  from  the  first,  grew  more  furious.  Among 
other  things,  a  Mr.Louiallier  published  a  denunciatory 
newspaper  article.  Gen.  Jackson  arrested  him.  A 
lawyer  by  the  name  of  Morel  procured  the  United 
States  Judge  Hall  to  issue  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  " 
to  relieve  Mr.  Louiallier.  Gen.  Jackson  arrested 
both  the  lawyer  and  the  judge.  A  Mr.  Hol'ander 
ventured  to  say  of  some  part  of  the  matter  that  "  it 
was  a  dirty  trick."  Gen.  Jackson  arrested  him. 
When  the  officer  undertook  to  serve  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpup,  Gen.  Jackson  took  it  from  him,  and 
eent  him  away  with  a  copy.  Holding  the  judge  in 
custody  a  few  days,  the  General  sent  him  beyond  the 
limits  of  his  encampment,  and  eet  him  at  liberty, 
>  with  an  order  to  remain  till  the  ratification  of  peace 
should  be  regularly  announced,  or  until  the  British 
should  have  left  the  Southern  coast.  A  day  or  two 
more  elapsed,  the  ratification  of  a  treaty  of  peace 
was  regularly  announced,  and  the  judge  and  others 


were  fully  liberated.  A  few  days  more,  and  the 
judge  called  Gen.  Jackson  into  court  and  fined  him 
$1,000  for  having  arrested  him  and  the  others  named. 
The  General  paid  the  fine,  and  there  the  matter 
rested  for  nearly  thirty  years,  when  Congress  re- 
funded principal  and  interest.  The  late  Senator 
Douglas,  then  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  took 
a  leading  part  in  the  debates,  iu  which  the  consti- 
tutional question  was  much  discussed.  I  am  not 
prepared  to  eay  whom  the  journals  would  show 
to  have  voted  for  the  measure. 

It  may  be  remarked:  First,  that  we  had  the  same 
Constitution  then  as  now;  secondly,  that  we  then 
had  a  case  of  invasion,  and  now  we  have  a  case  of 
rebellion;  and,  thirdly,  that  the  permanent  right  of 
the  People  to  Public  Discussion,  the  Liberty  of 
Speech  and  of  the  Press,  the  Trial  by  Jury,  the  L»w 
of  Evidence,  and  the  Habeas  Corpus,  suffered  no 
detriment  whatever  by  that  conduct  of  Gen.  Jack- 
son, or  its  subsequent  approval  by  the  American 
Congress. 

Aud  yet,  let  me  say  tbat,  in  my  own  discretion, 
I  do  not  know  whether  I  would  have  ordered  the 
arrest  of  Mr.  Vallandigham.  While  I  cannot  shift 
the  responsibility  from  myself,  I  hold  that,  as  a  general 
rule,  the  commander  iu  the  field  ia  the  better  judge 
of  the  necessity  in  any  particular  case.  Of  course, 
I  must  practice  a  general  directory  and  revisory 
power  in  the  matter. 

One  of  the  resolutions  expresses  the  opinion  of 
the  meeting  that  arbitrary  arrests  will  have  the 
effect  to  divide  and  distract  those  who  should  be 
united  in  suppressing  the  Rebellion,  and  I  am  speci- 
fically called  on  to  discharge  Mr.  Vallandigham. 
I  regard  this  as,  at  least,  a  fair  appeal  to  me  on  the 
expediency  of  exercising  a  Constitutional  power 
which  I  think  exists.  In  response  to  such  appeal, 
I  have  to  say,  it  gave  me  pain  when  I  learned  that 
Mr.  Vallandigbam  had  been  arrested — that  is,  I  was 
pained  that  there  should  have  seemed  to  be  a  neces- 
sity for  arresting  him— and  tbat  it  will  afford  me 
great  pleasure  to  discharge  him  eo  soon  as  I  can,  by 
any  means,  believe  the  public  safety  will  not  suffer 
by  it.  I  further  say  that,  as  the  war  progresses,  it 
appears  to  me,  opinion  and  action,  which  were  in 
great  confusion  at  first,  tske  shape  and  fall  into  more 
regular  channels,  so  that  the  necessity  for  strong 
dealing  with  them  gradually  decreases.  I  have 
every  reason  to  desire  that  it  should  cease  altogether ; 
and  far  from  the  least  is  my  regard  for  the  opinions 
and  wishes  of  those  who,  like  the  meeting  at  Albany, 
declare  their  purpose  to  sustain  the  Government  in 
every  Constitutional  and  lawful  measure  to  suppress 
the  Rebellion.  Still,  I  must  coutinue  to  do  so  much 
as  may  seem  to  be  required  by  the  public  safety,  <r 

A.  LINCOLN. 


Gaylamount 


Binder 
Oaylord  Bros.,  Inc. 

Stockton,  Calif- 
T.M.B...U.8.P.t.O«. 


M52048 


£-45$ 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


